Talk:Dervish (band)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dervishalbum.jpg

Image:Dervishalbum.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed para

I just removed the following paragraph due to its unencyclopedic tone. I'm moving it here in case someone can find a citation to support it.

Dervish concert performances are characterised by myriad tones and moods ranging from high energy tunes, played with fluidity and intuitiveness, to beautifully measured songs, from charming lyrics of life and love, to inspiring melodies that lift audiences from their seats. All the elements are drawn together by Cathy Jordan's masterful stage-presence. Her stories to the songs and her interaction with the audience draws people into the music in a way very few performers can achieve.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TyrS (talk • contribs) 04:06, 15 January 2010‎ (UTC)

Israel boycott text

So this version of the article puts far too much weight on the Israel boycott thing. It's three paragraphs that are longer than the rest of the text in the article, and is making a bigger deal out of it. Really, it's a thinly veiled Criticism section, which is generally not allowed. Also, the addition of "finishing in last place" at the end of the opening paragraph seems to skew the neutrality of the article. I don't get why we need three paragraphs - one of which is just a quote - to discuss it. A simple one line of "In the Spring of 2012, Dervish was one of two Irish bands that canceled heavily advertised concerts in Israel citing a cultural boycott of Israel." in the History section would suffice.

Given that this has been an issue in the last few days, please do not readd the text without trying to find some consensus here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• The information is taken from reliable sources. But more to the point. Dervish's boycott of Israel, and the tactics that lead to it, generated considerably controversy; it involved extensive lobbying by Anti-Israel groups, including what was described as a torrent of abuse and "venom" directed at the band on their website (i.e. Jordon's statement that "I wasn’t quite prepared for the extent of the venom directed at us") Furthermore, this issue resulted in a personal condemnation by Ireland's Justice Minister Alan Shatter. The point is that this wasn't just a simple boycott; rather it involved a concerted campaign by boycott proponents and lead to criticism from a senior government official. As for an earlier editor's statement that this page is an "Inappropriate forum for content added related to Israeli/Palestinian conflict)," none of the material involved here is Original research or consists of the opinions/analysis of Wiki editors (i.e. there is no discussion, only information taken from RS sources). If the editor is suggesting that it is "inappropriate" for this page to contain content regarding the IP conflict," on what basis is this judgment being made?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC))

My thoughts -- 1) The finishing in last place is what they may be most famous for; we certainly don't delete that from the lede; and 2) as to the three paras, the last para is necessary as RS-covered NPOV balancing. Epeefleche (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Alan Shatter's comments should be included.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC))

Frankly -- I'm shocked that an experienced editor would make this deletion. Really -- I've seen this from band managers' but this is outrageous ... among other things you want to delete the fact from the article that they came in last in the Eurovision Contest? Are you kidding? That's outrageous. Epeefleche (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Settle down. It's the addition of the last place thing to the lede that I find non-neutral. It's elsewhere in the text, and I've readded it. As to the anti-Israel thing, there are plenty of other bands out there who have canceled tours in exactly the same way, but there's no mention of it on their pages at all. Per Boycotts of Israel#Artistic boycotts, Gorillaz Sound System, Leftfield, Faithless, and Pixies are all in that boat. What I see here, then, is singling out this band for some reason.

Three paragraphs is excessive. A sentence or two under History would suffice. (Oh, and don't make this about edit counts - that has no bearing on anything.) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, you have missed the point I was making above. Yes, many bands have boycotted Israel, but how many of those bands were subject to "venom[ous]" attacks from Anti-Israel groups which subsequently forced the band to cancel its concert in Israel, and how many efforts to force bands to boycott Israel have drawn specific criticism from Irish Justice Minister Alan Shatter. The tactics used to force Dervish to boycott Israel, the media controversy it created, and the personal condemnation from Alan Shatter is why this portion of the article is so large.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC))

To clarify, what's notable here is that Dervish did not cancel their performances in Israel in response to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians (unlike the bands you have cited above). Rather, they cancelled their performances only after an intense "cyberbulling" (Shatter's word, not mine) effort by those hostile towards anyone who doesn't share their opinions about Israel.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC))

Hello -- thanks for your suggestion that I settle down. My irritation with the absurdity of you -- an experienced editor -- making those changes on the basis of your assertion lingers, one day later. I am exercised. This is unusual for me. But the level of the inappropriate nature of your editing here -- and your rationale as expressed in your edit summaries -- elicits my reaction. I've edited here for over 130,000 edits, and I've rarely seen this level of inappropriate editing by an editor of your seasoning. And that goes double for one who has wp:admin responsibilities. Shameful innappropriateness.

If you still don't see it -- and still now maintain, though backing off other aspects of your inappropriate edit, that it is NPOV to delete from the lede where the place of the band in the Eurovision Contest, I am amazed -- that is emphatically preposterous. Would you put in a lede that someone ran for Prime Minister, but leave out if they came in last? This is beyond absurd. It is either idiotic or POV to edit that way and assert that you are correcting POV -- and either way, it is not acceptable behavior, especially for an admin. As an admin you have even greater responsibilities in this regard. The last sysop that caused me half as much concern just gave up the bit on his own. If you edit like this consistently, and I don't know that you do ... but if you do, it brings into question whether you are editing in accord with wp:admin.

As to the three paras, see my comment above. You sought to delete one whole side of the matter. And then wrapped yourself -- incredibly ... what were you thinking ... that we are idiots? ... in the NPOV flag. While you were wiping out one side of the story, a clearly POV edit. Sheesh. Do we have to bring this to a board? I give an amount of leeway to seasoned editors at times (thought I'm not overly keen on the "don't template the regulars" thinking), because I think they know what is appropriate. And what is not. But this is very disturbing. Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)